the meeting? >> it did not come up except article 10, 11 designation doesn't seem to be a good fit for these types of properties and they're looking for ways to incentivize by tax abatement or property processing, priority processing or some other way the commission and the board of supervisors can make it easier for the businesses and cultural events remain in place. >> okay. thanks. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry commissioner sugaya. >> just a comment. i think that the discussion that's been going on and i think ideas they mainly proposed by commissioner martinez was along the lines if there was a possibility having some kind of designation or recognition or some process -- not necessarily for properties alone, but for other businesses or whatever, and then to try to tie those somehow to some kind of incentives or things that

don't currently exist and i think that's where the issue is. kind of like how do you designate and recognize and what are the incentives afterwards? or protections too? >> the board of appeals did meet last night. it was actually the first meeting where we had five members and commissioner honda was approved last week and had the first meeting with the board of appeals last week. he has the history of being a small business owner and currently works in real estate. they heard about a letter of determination appealed to the board and they found the property is within a thousand feet of the merceda heights play ground and recreational facility dedicated to 18 and under which would make this location not suitable in the neighborhood for medical cannabis dispensary.

we issued the first one in 2010 and issued a different one this year for a different operator. they didn't appeal the first two determinations so they did issue a third one and appeal to the board. the appellant acknowledged the location was within a thousand feet of the play ground but argued because it was a longer walk -- more than a thousand feet and separated by 19th avenue that the circumstances made it an ideal location for mcd. they clearly stated -- the code says if you're within a thousand feet and no longer eligible location. the board upheld how we measure distance and straight line so we did win on that item. the next item was on guerrero and building permit to a existing coffee shop and converting it into a restaurant that would

serve indian food. under the current definitions for restaurant which were effective in may coffee shops were put into the limited restaurant category which means they can do food prep so that is allowed pursuant to section 312. the neighbors have concerns about the addition and felt there should have been neighborhood notification to this. there were concerns about the construction of the hood. they actually started running the vents and building before they got the application. their concerns it's not relevant with housing codes as constructed soy the board did continue this item for three months until march to allow additional time to research it. there were questions whether the coffee shop was legally a coffee shop so we're reviewing that. if they didn't have legal status as a coffee shop then we would have to subject them to neighborhood

notification to convert to limited restaurant and we're still investigating that and that's all i want to report. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners that places you under general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission within the jurisdiction of the commission including item 10 today. as noted this case for the western soma community plan rezoning of adjacent parcels and the project and certification of the environmental impact report. the public hearing is closed. public comment ended on august 6, 2012 and the planning commission doesn't conduct final review of eir's but the public comment of certification maybe presented to the planning commission during this time of the agenda. with respect to all other agenda items your

opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the public for three minutes and i have several speaker cards. >> okay. calling a few names and if you want to line up on that side of the room would be easiest. (calling speaker names). >> linda chapman for knob hill neighbors. i brought somebody in and you can pass it around and i am getting tremendous emails and phone calls from the local methodist pastor who is active and revitalizing somewhat inactive methodist mission that

is supposed to manage the property. these are her photographs. she went up there and she was appalled and the way this has been handled by her denomination as she puts it and said why isn't the treasurer in sacramento managing this and we are managing it and is trying to turn the situation around. in the newsletter article it summed up a concern very well. herito was managing the meeting. i wasn't there and going to the meetings whenever possible and said 1601 larkin continues to be mediated by a local judge to avoid trial. the problem is the city approval process, procedure by the planning department, planning commission and board of supervisors might be nullified by a agreement by the developer and a few individuals and many

letters or at least letters from paid advocates and others have been written about selective participation in meetings, about for random people. you know somehow -- how would you say? driving what is happening here and cutting out the public. steve taker wanted me to address the city attorney in writing about the fact that we cannot have a few people be appointed -- it disenfranchises all of the citizens in san francisco and that can't happen in the courtroom or through here. we have a train wreck on top of the hill that involved the poor methodist church. i feel grieved that they're exploid the by two individuals and somebody is going to be blamed in the church and we shouldn't have a

train wreck with the city process. up to now it's worked well. we can't figure out what is behind all of a sudden a hearing, entitlement being scheduled and hearing that have been useful but that is canceled and scheduled before the application, even before the drawings before being done and meanwhile the negotiations are going on very strange. we're going to trade our architecturally significant building for three blocks of trees and the owners declined them and we offered them free. >> dino. while presenting in this room one of the leading

developers in the areas eyes on the street and life in the american cities and james jacobs and the use of sidewalks and safety. the following is a compilation of quotes from the chapter. "streets and sidewalks the most vital organs. think of a city and what comes to mind? the streets. if the street is interesting the city looks interesting. if it looks dull the city looks dull. more than that if a streets are safe and aif from fear. when a city says it's dangers or part of a jungle and they mean primarily they don't feel safe on the sidewalks. to be safe is fundamental task of the streets and the sidewalks. a bed rock aspect of a successful city

district a person must feel safe and secure on the street among the strangers and not automatically feel menaced by him. a city district that fails in this respect does badly in other ways and lays up for itself and the city at large mountain on mountain of trouble. to build districts that are custom made for easy crime is idiotic. yes, that is what we do. this was written in 1961. public peace, the street and the sidewalk is not kept primarily by the police. it's kept by intricate unconscious voluntary controls and standards among the people themselves and enforced by the people themselves. no amount of police can enforce civilization or the normal casual enforcement of it has broken down. a well used city street is apt to be a safe city

street. a deserted street is apt to be unsafe. there must be eyes upon the street. eyes belonging to those we call the natural proprietors of the street. the building on a main street equipped to handle strangers and ensure the safety of residents and strangers must be oriented to the street. the natural proprietors can not turn their backs and leave it blind. jane jacobs was a life student of urban plan scption ensured criticism going into a male dosm nated field. they called her a housewife and a crazy dame and organized grass-roots effort and greenwich village and the lower manhattan express way and was arrested for inciting a crowd

on the project. thank you linda for remaining peaceful. >> hi. i am speaking with respect to the news zoning overlay for the western soma district. i can speak now or wait until that agenda items comes up. >> this is the opportunity to speak on the certification of of the environmental impact report. >> okay. so i will wait. >> come on up ms. hester. let me call a few more names. >> i would sit down if there were people ahead of me. >> i called the names. it appears they're not here. >> sue hester. i sent my letter to individual members of the commission and the bureaucracy and the secretary. i am concerned about the rules of

the planning commission, and i have particular attention to intention to the require requiring two week packets. it's in the rules of the planning commission, and the rules belong to the public as much as they belong to anybody. a commission matter that is complicated is supposed to have a packet two weeks in advance. it's supposed to go to the commission with acknowledgment the commission may want to read a complicated case with more leisure, and they're available to the public. the attention by staff to the two week rule is hit and miss. occasionally they're produced but they don't come to the commission. occasionally i am told they are produced but they remain in the

file of the person doing the review. that was a previous zoning administrator, not mr. sanchez, who made that interpretation which i don't understand at all. they're occasionally produced but not put in the public bin. the general public comes to the plang department comes through the public bin. the public bin is provided on friday which is itself a problem because they're supposed -- the regular availability is supposed to be on thursday, but i think this is a matter that deserves some attention. if you have a rule, and i did send my copy to the city attorney as well. it's supposed to be followed. the cases you have coming before you in the next month -- you have a lot of two week cases. you had

one last week. all of the cases in the transit center are two weeks cases. you have one for the western soma. you have the concourse and two blocks project. you have the new mission theater. all of these are two week cases no matter how you cut them, and the report should come to you, and they should come to the likes of me two weeks in advance. they should be in the public bin for the date, which is two weeks out. they're never in a file two weeks out, and who is in charge of complying with the code? the city attorney should be writing force over the planning commission if the planning commission is ina tent. thank you very much. >> afterthis speaker kenny

carpenter, mike tally. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am henry conolwitc and a member of a task force for a number of years and i am here to say it really was a hard job to do this in numerous meetings even the public participated in, so we're hearing voices from everybody, a very diverse community that it was, and it was a job well done. i would like to commend the chair and the paul lord who without his help we wouldn't be where we are right now and i want to say please go ahead and certify this eir and i think it will really move the neighborhood ahead. >> thank you is there any additional speakers? >> hello i am mike tally. i'm a long-term resident of south of

market. before there for decades and i watched this neighborhood change dramatically over the years, some for the other, some not. i have seen that the night clubs are under attack by the newer residents who come into this neighborhood, and i don't think that's a good thing for south of market. i know that sames had to pay $700,000 in legal fees for one resident on the street just to stay open. i know the new projects on dora immediately began to complain about the power house bar across the street from them and the fair and complained boo about the other fairs and they're not tolerating the community already in place and i don't think the project on eighth street is a gallon r

good thing for our. >> >> community and i think trying to shoe horn all those apartments is simply not a good thing for us. i don't trust developers. i have lived there long enough to bewarey of their promises and i think the over flow of the parking is going to be a nightmare. we live one block from that development. it's going to be a nightmare for us and i just oppose this on so many grounds. >> sir. thank you. we very much appreciate it and if we can keep the comments specifically to the eir during this period. that's the agenda item. >> president fong and commissioners, andrew greg here on behalf of mr. harny. he's here to speak to you later in the agenda on the historic resource controls. he sent a letter to the commission and

copied to the director as well as the staff planner, but there is one portion of that correspondence -- copy of a letter sent to the hpc from spur which is eir related component. in their letter spur specifically asked for supplemental eir to be under taken and let just quote from that letter because it does pertain to western soma. this is from spur. "we believe that a supplemental eir for the eastern neighborhoods and the western soma must be completed prior to the survey findings in order to organize the findings on the development assumptions in those areas" so that's just the 1eir related component to what we're speaking about later, so this is the appropriate

time. thank you. >> is there any additional general public comment? okay. >> public comment portion is closed. >> thank you commissioner. and that will place us under the regular calendar, item nine case amendments to the planning code amending section 166 to allow additional car share parking spaces. >> good afternoon president fong and members of the commission. mr. power is here. >> i am here for supervisor scott wiener and unfortunately he couldn't make it this

afternoon. many of these locations where the spots exist are disappearing. along upper market street most of the gas stations parking lots are redeveloped and we are losing the spaces that exist. car share availability is important to the city and we want to make not having a car as easy as possible but with those without vehicles there is always a need maybe to go to the store or go out of town. while we want to encourage access to car share the planning code doesn't always do this. if a developer wants to include those spots they're treated the same way as private spots when counting towards

maximums. this is not an incentive. a project at market and castro and didn't seek the parking above that ratio. this is good and we want to encourage it. even though the community wanted the park share in the building because of the spots loss because of redevelopment and the developer was supportive of that he didn't feel he could eat into the .5 parking and therefore there is no car share at market and castro at this location. this is where we want car share to be. car share companies are telling us they're having challenges finding spots around the city. so this legislation would allow projects to include a limited number of spaces without counting towards their private parking maximums and supportive of the transit first policy. our policy was

to encourage projects to have limited parking and for this to work in the long run we must provide transit options and car opportunities when they need access to a car. we have been working with car share organizations and the broader community to redefine the proposal as introduced. and have worked with mta and the planning staff. we have heard a few concerns we intend to address. the staff report before you also addresses these concerns and we are fully supportive of all the recommendations in the staff report, but namely the concern was that that providing voluntary car share would be a way for projects to work around parking maximums and we don't believe that's the case. although we are responding to that concern, so this legislation would require that before a project is entitled

requesting volunteer car share spots they need a letter of intent from a certified organization. in addition they are restricted and can't be used for anything but car share or private vehicle ownership. if they aren't used for that they can be used for bicycling, storage but not private vehicle parking, and one of the other things that we are fully supportive of the recommendation from mta and planning staff is that this be used as an incentive for projects not to go for increased parking, so in other words this would only be conferred on projects that do not seek that for increased parking ratios and lastly the question of enforcement, so we are in agreement with planning staff and with the mta that on

site signage needs to be enhanced so the idea would be there would be on site signage that has the number of spots required at that location along with a direct contact for reporting violations, and the planning staff, the department would also be providing a regular update of all car share spots in buildings. that will be posted on its website and that information is shared regularly with organizations looking for spots, and we are also starting off -- we are in preliminary discussions with planning and the mta to look at sort of the more comprehensive solutions to parking code issues and enforcement in the planning code. there has been discussion about perhaps looking at transferring some of the enforcement responsibility to the mta, so the supervisor believes that this legislation

-- to conclude it advances the goals of private car ownership and maybe the streets safer for bicycles and pedestrians and help transit and he would be honored to have your support. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you and i think he went over the legislation pretty well. just to re-cap that the department does recommend approval with modifications. those modifications include to modify the ordinance so solve site car spaces been in place for a year or more can be retained at the qualify the property owner with new development without reducing the other parking. we proposed different scale for that parking and commercial parking and the scale is based on conversations

that we had with the supervisor's office. requires signage above or next to the traditional car share space indicating that the parking space is for car share and not used for private automobiles and the sign should have a number on it for enforcement. and consider legislation for mta enforce the parking or provide them more citation powers and this is only allowed for projects seeking conditional use for additional parking. th proposed ordinance are in accordance and allow residents to rely on alternative modes of

transportation and access to cars when needed. the modifications are intended to address the concerns about providing excess parking and enforcement issues and that concludes my presentation. of course i am happy to answer questions. >> i will open it up for public comment. any public comment on this item? >> i have two cards seer. -- here. sorry. (calling speakers). >> good afternoon. i am dan grossman with zip car and i would say that staff has pretty much stolen my speech. vehicles and miles reduced and ownership is all what we're about and the benefits of car sharing. we're a certified car organization so we have documented that for the city of san francisco which is phenomenal and i just like to

thank supervisor wiener and the staff for the hard work here. in san francisco right now zip car has more than 1300 cars and parking continues to be a big issue as the city grows and develop. you can imagine a lot of the parking is diminished. but at the same time the membership continues to grow and that's just a good prong to have, so we're looking for this as somewhat of a partnership with the city and currently we work with probably more than a hundred developments in the city right now, and adding a fee spaces as part of this legislation i see very little down side. if someone can move into one of these buildings and not have to bring a car, or a second car because we're already there i think it's a win-win for the developer and for zip car, so i just wanted to come today show my support on behalf of zip car. in the organization